All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Navigation

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to
use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

Please Log In to Continue

The US promised to pay the dues. It doesn't really matter beyond that--if the payment of the dues to the UN isn't unconstitutional, and they're not (the constitution doesn't forbid entering into treaties or agreements that involve payment, nor does it binding on the non-US governmental parties in the agreements the US makes), we have an obligation.

We promised. We pay. If we don't want to meet obligations we've agreed to, we should bail on the agreements.

Back a few years ago we did promise to pay the rest of the dues IF certain conditions (reforms and such) were met by the UN. I know of no unconditional promise. Now, Clinton and his ambassadors promised, but they have no legal authority to make such a promise. So I am not sure which promise you are referring to.

Let's be clear what the US did: it ratified the UN Charter, which is not an unqualified promise to pay, but an agreement that if we don't pay, that the UN may enact a specific penalty, the removal of our right to vote in the General Assembly.

There is no actual obligation to pay. There is no promise to pay. There is no "owing" of dues. The UN Charter has a process for nonpayment and that process involves taking away a vote, not resignation.

Let's be clear what the US did: it ratified the UN Charter, which is not an unqualified promise to pay, but an agreement that if we don't pay, that the UN may enact a specific penalty, the removal of our right to vote in the General Assembly.

That sounds like the US once stated (officially) that "yeah the UN is good idea" and hasn't had anything to do with it since.

The US has done far more than that. It has acted as a member of the UN and participated in its operation.

If you're going to actively participate in a club, you ought to pay the appropriate dues. If you disagree about what is appropriate, you try to resolve the issue and failing that you leave the club.

It would be a mistake for both of the US and the UN if the US were to leave.

I have no opinion on whether the security activities that the US has contributed ought to be treated as payement. Offhand, I doubt that the UN has any obligation to treat them as such, but I don't know whether such activities are considered to be authorized by the UN and carried out by agreeing member states, or instead they are carried out (contracted for) by the UN directly.

That sounds like the US once stated (officially) that "yeah the UN is good idea" and hasn't had anything to do with it since. The US has done far more than that. It has acted as a member of the UN and participated in its operation.

Of course. My intent clearly was never to imply what you said it sounds like. My intent was to state the fact that there is no legal obligation to pay.

If you're going to actively participate in a club, you ought to pay the appropriate dues. If you disagree about what is appr

I just want to clarify something in case it's been missed: I am not against payment of the UN assessments. What I am against is treating it as though this money is promised by virtue of prior ratification of the UN Charter; that the US is legally required or obligated to pay it; that the result of nonpayment should be leaving the UN.

I feel I've demonstrated that none of those things are true: the only legally binding promise allowed by our Constitution is that of Congress appropriating a specific amount;